The slow grass is why I made the controversial statement that Sampras would only have a few wimby titles if he had to play on it. I got it from all sides on that one!!

I do have to disagree with that because Fed's serve is dominating the tourney right now (he has only been broken 2 times). Pete's serve was at least as good as Fed's if not better........so Pete would have done very similar to the way he actually did. Plus, great players do what they have to do on changing surfaces.........Pete could have volleyed less on a slower Wimby surface and still been successful just as Fed could volley more on a faster Wimby surface and still be successful.

He should have been able to do that on clay then also by the same reasoning. Doesn't really matter though, there's no way to really find out, just food for thought.

OH!, I see, you guys thought you were in yet another Federer v Sampras thread.

So having watch the last 3 Wimby men's finals, and with 2008 fresh in memory*, do any of you who voted for "faster combo" want to change your vote?

*My favorite part of this poll is that some of those most vehimantly opposed to the "slower combo" don't have memories of the 1990s. Fellas, the 1990s were soooo uninteresting that the powers that be at Wimby felt compelled to change things up! The fact that you have no valid memories of the '90s makes it kind of convevient, I suppose, to argue to change things back

So having watch the last 3 Wimby men's finals, and with 2008 fresh in memory*, do any of you who voted for "faster combo" want to change your vote?

*My favorite part of this poll is that some of those most vehimantly opposed to the "slower combo" don't have memories of the 1990s. Fellas, the 1990s were soooo uninteresting that the powers that be at Wimby felt compelled to change things up! The fact that you have no valid memories of the '90s makes it kind of convevient, I suppose, to argue to change things back

So having watch the last 3 Wimby men's finals, and with 2008 fresh in memory*, do any of you who voted for "faster combo" want to change your vote?

*My favorite part of this poll is that some of those most vehimantly opposed to the "slower combo" don't have memories of the 1990s. Fellas, the 1990s were soooo uninteresting that the powers that be at Wimby felt compelled to change things up! The fact that you have no valid memories of the '90s makes it kind of convevient, I suppose, to argue to change things back

You're right. It was rather booring to 'watch'. I liked it in that Pete won a lot...but as far as 'watching' the tennis...it was boring with a booming serve/volley/winner. All over all the time... If you got a 5-stroke point - that was amazing! I would like for it to be a little faster than it is now, but not as fast as it was in the 90s.

So having watch the last 3 Wimby men's finals, and with 2008 fresh in memory*, do any of you who voted for "faster combo" want to change your vote?

*My favorite part of this poll is that some of those most vehimantly opposed to the "slower combo" don't have memories of the 1990s. Fellas, the 1990s were soooo uninteresting that the powers that be at Wimby felt compelled to change things up! The fact that you have no valid memories of the '90s makes it kind of convevient, I suppose, to argue to change things back

It was enthralling riveting stuff, no doubt. But a faster crisper 5 setter in 3 hours is just as good as a slower, 5 set slugfest over 5 hours. It's about maintaining variety in tennis. Right now clay is getting faster, and Wimbledon is getting slower. They are meeting at hard courts. In the end all tournaments will look the same, and the same players will vie for the titles. I just feel there is a sameness that's beginning to pervade the tour, both ATP and WTA. Same styles, same strategies, and same comments from players pre and post match. Cookie cutter tennis isn't compelling regardless of how that cutter cuts the cookies.And by the way, I have very clear memories of past Wimbledon matches. I also remember the constant complaining that power is ruining the game. The pendulum had swung too far in the power direction. Now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

« Last Edit: July 06, 2008, 08:43:14 PM by dmastous »

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

So having watch the last 3 Wimby men's finals, and with 2008 fresh in memory*, do any of you who voted for "faster combo" want to change your vote?

*My favorite part of this poll is that some of those most vehimantly opposed to the "slower combo" don't have memories of the 1990s. Fellas, the 1990s were soooo uninteresting that the powers that be at Wimby felt compelled to change things up! The fact that you have no valid memories of the '90s makes it kind of convevient, I suppose, to argue to change things back

It was enthralling riveting stuff, no doubt. But a faster crisper 5 setter in 3 hours is just as good as a slower, 5 set slugfest over 5 hours. It's about maintaining variety in tennis. Right now clay is getting faster, and Wimbledon is getting slower. They are meeting at hard courts. In the end all tournaments will look the same, and the same players will vie for the titles. I just feel there is a sameness that's beginning to pervade the tour, both ATP and WTA. Same styles, same strategies, and same comments from players pre and post match. Cookie cutter tennis isn't compelling regardless of how that cutter cuts the cookies.And by the way, I have very clear memories of past Wimbledon matches. I also remember the constant complaining that power is ruining the game. The pendulum had swung too far in the power direction. Now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

That's right.

I have not watched the 90s but let me tell you this much:The day clay courters start doing better and winning wimbledon is a day when the changes to control the "boring" tennis of the power players have been pushed so far as to turn wimbledon into another era of just as boring tennis - claycourt tennis.

And that's the second slam of the year to feature that brand, no longer is Wimbledon a unique surface or slam.

So having watch the last 3 Wimby men's finals, and with 2008 fresh in memory*, do any of you who voted for "faster combo" want to change your vote?

*My favorite part of this poll is that some of those most vehimantly opposed to the "slower combo" don't have memories of the 1990s. Fellas, the 1990s were soooo uninteresting that the powers that be at Wimby felt compelled to change things up! The fact that you have no valid memories of the '90s makes it kind of convevient, I suppose, to argue to change things back

It was enthralling riveting stuff, no doubt. But a faster crisper 5 setter in 3 hours is just as good as a slower, 5 set slugfest over 5 hours. It's about maintaining variety in tennis. Right now clay is getting faster, and Wimbledon is getting slower. They are meeting at hard courts. In the end all tournaments will look the same, and the same players will vie for the titles. I just feel there is a sameness that's beginning to pervade the tour, both ATP and WTA. Same styles, same strategies, and same comments from players pre and post match. Cookie cutter tennis isn't compelling regardless of how that cutter cuts the cookies.And by the way, I have very clear memories of past Wimbledon matches. I also remember the constant complaining that power is ruining the game. The pendulum had swung too far in the power direction. Now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

Great stuff, Dmast, except for yet another Mastousisms

But you make the best case of all for returning to the "faster combo". My bias against Wimby to begin with precludes me to think in those terms, so thanks for giving me a new perspective.

I found it interesting that Wimby waited until after Pete's reign ended to slow the things down. Should they decide to speed things up, I wonder if they'd wait for Roger to call it quits.

So having watch the last 3 Wimby men's finals, and with 2008 fresh in memory*, do any of you who voted for "faster combo" want to change your vote?

*My favorite part of this poll is that some of those most vehimantly opposed to the "slower combo" don't have memories of the 1990s. Fellas, the 1990s were soooo uninteresting that the powers that be at Wimby felt compelled to change things up! The fact that you have no valid memories of the '90s makes it kind of convevient, I suppose, to argue to change things back

It was enthralling riveting stuff, no doubt. But a faster crisper 5 setter in 3 hours is just as good as a slower, 5 set slugfest over 5 hours. It's about maintaining variety in tennis. Right now clay is getting faster, and Wimbledon is getting slower. They are meeting at hard courts. In the end all tournaments will look the same, and the same players will vie for the titles. I just feel there is a sameness that's beginning to pervade the tour, both ATP and WTA. Same styles, same strategies, and same comments from players pre and post match. Cookie cutter tennis isn't compelling regardless of how that cutter cuts the cookies.And by the way, I have very clear memories of past Wimbledon matches. I also remember the constant complaining that power is ruining the game. The pendulum had swung too far in the power direction. Now the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

That's right.

I have not watched the 90s but let me tell you this much:The day clay courters start doing better and winning wimbledon is a day when the changes to control the "boring" tennis of the power players have been pushed so far as to turn wimbledon into another era of just as boring tennis - claycourt tennis.

And that's the second slam of the year to feature that brand, no longer is Wimbledon a unique surface or slam.

Aren't guys like Federer, who choose to play from the baseline, to blame? Fed isn't an agressive player irrespective of the surface. The USO has played fastest for several years now, but he'd prefer to hit winners from the baseline.

Bottom line: the surface is irrelevant. Players have to commit to S&V (= variety) a la Patrick Rafter, the last great S&Ver. Instead, they all choose to learn to play defensively from the baseline, Federer included.

So what does the surface have to do with variety? Nothing, nada, zip. If 130 mph serves won't move top players like Federer off the baseline at even the quickest playing "combo", the USO, where Nadal has yet to conquer, then you shouldn't be about the surface. Look elsewhere. Talk to me about commitment--commitment to variety--or the technological advances since Rafter left the sport not so long ago. Surface is just a red herring.

Methinks that the current technology and changes in surface speed are what's contributing to the players adopting a more defensive / reactionary game. That, and the fact that it's easier to thump groundies than to learn an all-court game.

Methinks that the current technology and changes in surface speed are what's contributing to the players adopting a more defensive / reactionary game. That, and the fact that it's easier to thump groundies than to learn an all-court game.

That's right: there's a complicity on behalf of the players. And if you want to point fingers, Federer is a good place to start. His defensive/reactionary game is evidence of player complicity which has ushered in the new wave of "boring tennis" (pawan's words).

As recently as 2004 and 2005, Federer played big serving Roddick. But WTF is the difference between two dudes constructing points from the baseline with the ability of throwing down +20 aces and two dudes constructing points from the baseline, only one of which is capable of posting +20 aces? Sounds like 10-12 aces...

I think the surface has something to do with it, sure. If you had a chance to watch some of the Newport matches you would see lots of guys serving and volleying. Getting to the net is a premium there, because you can't depend on the bounce. It's low and fast and inconsistent. Better to get to the ball before the bounce. I don't know if the Wimbledon grass was as difficult (I doubt was this bad), but it's probably a similar mindset.I've been on this rant before, and I'll briefly touch on the points. Technology is part of the reason. The bigger racquets with larger sweetspots, so you don't have to hit dead center to make the ball go fast are big reasons. The poly string which allows for more uppercut swings that create more spin without too much power are reasons. But the string doesn't work with out the racquets, so those go hand in hand. The training techniques have changed over the years and they are a product of what works. It's not that they are too lazy to work on the net game, is just doesn't pay like it used to.Federer was more of a serve/volley player in the beginning, but has morphed into an all court baseliner. He didn't do that because he liked the baseline better (at least I don't think so, Becker used to frustrate his coaches for that very reason), he did that because it gave him the best chance to win matches. The forehand stroke is considerably different now than it was 20 years ago. The groundstrokes we see routinely today, would have been awe inspring, once in a match, shots. This is due to the technology allowing players the freedom to add more arm movement and wrist movement to the shot. This gives them more options, and gives would be volleyer's fits. Can you approach on today's players, of course you can. They are human and make mistakes, and attacking at the net can still bring pressure to create mistakes. But the percentages are much more against the volleyer now.But the surface they play on is a factor. Slower grass, grass that gives a higher favorable bounce is gong to allow baseliners to succeed where they didn't succeed as much in the past. As if they need more help.There is an article in this months Tennis Mag about a similar subject. It talks about how in the past everyone was saying the technology was helping the power game, and the serve was getting bigger and bigger, and the game was getting boring with all the power. But something happened. The technology helped the returner too. They showed a chart where in 80s the better returners were routinely lower ranked players. But now the better returners are the higher ranked players. The point is the fear of the technology making tennis into some sort of boring power game was unfounded. Poly and spin have totally turned that on it's ear. They have balanced the books in that department. But now the homoginizing of the surfaces (clay getting faster and grass slower) is starting to push the game into a same ol' same ol' position. But not power, as everyone thought, baseline bashing.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

Methinks that the current technology and changes in surface speed are what's contributing to the players adopting a more defensive / reactionary game. That, and the fact that it's easier to thump groundies than to learn an all-court game.

That's right: there's a complicity on behalf of the players. And if you want to point fingers, Federer is a good place to start. His defensive/reactionary game is evidence of player complicity which has ushered in the new wave of "boring tennis" (pawan's words).

As recently as 2004 and 2005, Federer played big serving Roddick. But WTF is the difference between two dudes constructing points from the baseline with the ability of throwing down +20 aces and two dudes constructing points from the baseline, only one of which is capable of posting +20 aces? Sounds like 10-12 aces...

The bottom line for me is that I'd like to see players with variety in their game.I find that interesting. I like to see guys that can attack and dudes that can defend. I especially like the players that can do both. I think by having greater variety in court surfaces allows all types to succeed. Any dumbing down of the surfaces contributes to mediocrity in the level of interest for me.

Lot's of terrific stuff here, Dmast and monster. I'm having a hard time addressing it all while at work so I'll do the best I can with limited time.

This is quite a murky matter, but one thing is clear: we all would like to see more variety. Here's the bottom line:

It's not that you can't compete as a S&Ver today, it's just that you'll be a late bloomer and virtually all players at the top--like Federer--aren't willing to forego the cash money. Sampras was exceptional in that he S&V'd his way to the top from a young age. But he did so in an era dominated by baseliners. The last great player to persevere from an attacking style was Patrick Rafter. But Rafter didn't ascend to the top until he was 25.

Today, there are a few players who can make a good living S&Ving, the best of them being Radek Stepanek--the others that come to mind are Mahut and Llodra. All three fit the delayed gratification/late-bloomer mold. But are these guys the best representatives? Do these guys have the skills to reach the top? I think not. Wouldn't a superior athlete, like a Rafter or a Federer, be a better measuring stick? Certainly. Unfortunately, you'd have to forego a ton of cabbage up front like Rafter did. Dmast, you were talking about how cash money is bad for the sport. Well, I throw it in as a HUGE factor for lack of variety in today's game.

Lot's of terrific stuff here, Dmast and monster. I'm having a hard time addressing it all while at work so I'll do the best I can with limited time.

This is quite a murky matter, but one thing is clear: we all would like to see more variety. Here's the bottom line:

It's not that you can't compete as a S&Ver today, it's just that you'll be a late bloomer and virtually all players at the top--like Federer--aren't willing to forego the cash money. Sampras was exceptional in that he S&V'd his way to the top from a young age. But he did so in an era dominated by baseliners. The last great player to persevere from an attacking style was Patrick Rafter. But Rafter didn't ascend to the top until he was 25.

Today, there are a few players who can make a good living S&Ving, the best of them being Radek Stepanek--the others that come to mind are Mahut and Llodra. All three fit the delayed gratification/late-bloomer mold. But are these guys the best representatives? Do these guys have the skills to reach the top? I think not. Wouldn't a superior athlete, like a Rafter or a Federer, be a better measuring stick? Certainly. Unfortunately, you'd have to forego a ton of cabbage up front like Rafter did. Dmast, you were talking about how cash money is bad for the sport. Well, I throw it in as a HUGE factor for lack of variety in today's game.

100% coooorrrect!

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

I agree that the players you mentioned have no real shot at the top of the pyramid.What's interesting is the fact that they are successful on the pro tour!And lets not forget Super Mario! I'd like to see him stay healthy for a couple of years and develop his game a bit further. I think he could make the top 20 and stay there if his health were good.

Some really great points here Naturally, I am taking Dmast and Monster's side here.

There really isn't much I can say besides what's already been said. At some point you also have to factor in the fact that I simply prefer a more complete and agressive style of play and not the game that has thrived on clay for so long and am very opposed to that kind of game spreading. But again, i have tried to be as objective as possible but I can't be totally objective I suppose.

Surfaces definitely make a difference. There's definitely going to be statistical outliers like Borg and Nadal who, honestly - not much I can do beside admit it - are just too good and will win if they want to win regardless of surface and style. People like Agassi and Federer are agressive baseliners - completely different from the likes of Nadal - and they can win the FO even though its clay and thier game is not suited simply because they are great champions. Same goes for Nadal and Wimbledon even if I don't like it.

but again, bottomline is surfaces matter and the whole purpose of having different surfaces is to play differently and test various kinds of players. If I could compile some statistics maybe I could really show the trend. or maybe I'll find out the trend is really not as bad as my mind makes it out to be. But you know, just generally looking, there's a reason the game played by Roddick, Blake, Berdych and such has its best results on faster hardcourts and grasscourts and not on clay and slower hardcourts. similarly, there's a reason guys like Nadal, ferrer, robredo have their best results on clay and slower hardcourts. And people who have variety and can be the agressor and play defensively and simply put, more game in them, like Federer, Djokovic, Gasquet and such have the potential to do well anywhere.

And the simple trend is pointing to the spread of claycourters into grass and no matter how you look at it, ultimately there's a relation between the surface and the style of players that flourish on it. and I don't like it. therein lies my pretty straightforward answer to this poll.

I am not a big proponent of serve and volley, I have never watched it and can't imagine actually watching it to the extent it was played in the 90s. I think its amazing tactic to disrupt rythem, put pressure and all that and its amazing to see Federer and Gasquet actually do it and get some momentum going when they are doing or you know, just to show the variety.. its cool. But I am not a proponent of s&v tennis. Pure s&v is just as boring and one-dimensional as pure 20ft-behind-baseline tennis. I am talking about agressive tennis vs. defensive tennis. Blake losing to Schuttler on grass is something that shouldn't be happening that often and that has been happening more and more and more lately.

and seroiusly, great last few posts Babblelot, Dmast and Monster.. why can't everyone learn to have this kinda civilized discussion?